Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: SAPD: Man defends girlfriend; shoots robbery suspects [View all]branford
(4,462 posts)You're changing the actual situation to conform to your own feelings and biases, and have not actually read or digested all of what I explained or what was detailed in the OP. According to the story, the man didn't "run after the thieves and shoot them down" rather he lawfully chased criminals, they threatened him, and only then did he use his firearm in legal self-defense. Your objection is that the man possessed the means to properly defend himself and not fear the pursuit of criminals. Not fearing criminals does not make one an "aggressor" under the law.
If you are robbed, you have a right to chase the thieves. In fact, absent unusual circumstances, you can follow anyone for any reason on public property. Your possession of a gun (or knife, bat, etc.) is immaterial, and the basic laws of self-defense do not change. Generally, you may only employ lethal self-defense, firearm or otherwise, if you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. You may not just shoot a fleeing thief in the back. However, if while pursuing the thieves, they turn and seriously threaten you, as happened in the OP, self-defense is indeed justified. Notable, thieves generally may not claim they were acting in self-defense if they are escaping from their crime and attempting to avoid capture. The more permissive self-defense laws in Texas which permit lethal force to defend property were not really pertinent in this incident, as usual self-defense laws as exit elsewhere would cover these circumstances. Robbery is also usually considered a violent crime, not just a property crime, justify more lethal self-defense measures.
The man did not simply kill two men over a purse, as you suggest. He was willing to give chase to actual thieves, and then use a firearm only when they threatened him because they wanted to ensure their escape. The thieves should have kept on running, but I most certainly do not sympathize with the results of their mistake to threaten violence in order to get away with their crime. They are lucky to be alive, and have only themselves to blame for their misfortune. Hopefully, they will reflect on their poor choices while incarcerated.
The only "madness" and belief that "life is cheap" was displayed by the thieves for engaging in a dangerous (and repeated) criminal enterprise, and you, because you want to effectively deny victims the right to defend themselves, and worse, defend and sympathize with criminals while blaming the victims.
Again, the use of a gun was ancillary to this incident as it pertains to right to lethal self-defense, and you truly do not understand the right of victims (or the public) or the rules of self-defense, regardless if the locale is Texas, San Francisco or most anywhere else.
As to whether I would kill another human being over a slice of pizza, a bicycle or Ipad, my response would be that if I possessed a means to adequately protect myself without endangering others, I likely would not voluntarily turn over my hard-earned property to criminals, and if they threatened violence, I would sadly feel the necessity of lawfully responding in kind to protect myself. The death or injury of the violent criminals would be regrettable, as any loss of life is tragic, but the fault would be the criminal's, not mine.
Are you actually suggesting that people should have a legal obligation to peacefully turn over their property to thieves in order to protect criminals from injury?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)